Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-153797-L0T2T4
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the Department was justified in applying articles 8(i)(a) and 9(1)(c) to redacted information released to the appellant.
11 February 2026
1. On 6 September 2024 the appellant made an AIE request of the Department for the following:
“1. Please provide, by email, information on the dates of all meetings (including both face-to-face and virtual meetings) held in June 2024 between DAFM and Coillte. Information to include, inter alia, the dates of all:
a) Routine weekly meetings held between DAFM with Coillte
b) Meetings attended by the Minister of State (DAFM) with Coillte
2. Please provide information on all attendees (both DAFM and Coillte attendees) to all June 2024 meetings between DAFM and Coillte.
3. Please provide, by email, a copy of the agendas and minutes (both handwritten and otherwise) for all June 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request.
4. Please provide by email, all information received by DAFM from Coillte in relation to all June 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request, whether received by DAFM prior to the scheduled meeting with Coillte or received by DAFM during the scheduled meeting with Coillte.
5. Please provide by email, all information received by Coillte from DAFM in relation to all June 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request, whether received by Coillte prior to the scheduled meeting with DAFM or received by Coillte during the scheduled meeting with DAFM.
6. Please provide copies of all informal notes / informal records etc, (handwritten information to be included) in relation to all June 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request, whether written/created during or after either the meetings and where the informal records etc relate to all, or any part, of the topics covered in any June 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request.
7. Please provide copies of all post meeting reports /updates etc. circulated within DAFM, from DAFM to Coillte and from Coillte to DAFM (e.g. emails, telephone notes/call, WhatsApp messages etc) regarding any topics covered at any June 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request.”
2. On 3 October 2024 the Department issued its original decision refusing access to the information sought on the basis of article 7(5) contending that the information was not held by or for the Department and, that it had conducted adequate searched in respect of same.
3. On 3 October 2024 the appellant made an internal review request in respect of the decision.
4. On 22 October 2024 the Department issued its internal review decision which it stated varied the original decision, noting:
“My decision is to vary the previous Decision Maker’s decision and to part-grant your request. All information relating to AIE 24 566 was issued to you with the Decision letter of 3rd October 2024, along with one document which was redacted of personal information (and was therefore part-granted). There is no further documentation to issue in the case of AIE 24 566 .
To clarify,
• questions 1 and 2 of your AIE request were answered in the Decision letter dated 3rd October 2024, therefore this part of your AIE request is granted.
• questions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 or your AIE request, no data was returned from the searches carried out, other than the email document which was attached to the AIE Decision email which issued on 3rd October 2024, confirming the cancellation of a meeting. Consequently, this part of your request is refused, as there is no data relating to this part of your AIE request.
• with regard to question 7, a response was issued by SME which is detailed below.
Where information has been refused or partially refused, the following article(s) of SI 133/2007 apply: Article 8(a)(i) A public authority shall not make available environmental information in accordance with article 7 where disclosure of the information would adversely affect the confidentiality of personal information relating to a natural person who has not consented to the disclosure of the information, and where that confidentiality is otherwise protected by law.
And
Where information is refused or partially refused: In accordance with Article 7(5), where a request is made to a public authority and the information requested is not held by or for the authority concerned, that authority shall inform the applicant as soon as possible that the information is not held by or for it.
Following the assignment of this AIE request, Subject Matter Experts 1 and 2- both of whom would be privy and/or attendees to these meetings – were contacted. In response to your questions numbered 1 to 7, the following answers were returned:
1A: 10th and 24th of June
1B: None
2: {named SME’s}
3: No Data Found
4: No Data Found
5: No Data Found
6: No Data Found
Once this information was received, SME 1 and SME 2 were contacted again re. your question regarding the meeting on the 24/06/2024, and the fact that your question 7 would need to be addressed. As per the email attached to the original AIE response of 3rd October 2024, the meeting on the 24/06/2024 was cancelled so never took place.
Regarding question 7, SME 1 supplied the following response: “I searched all emails to Coillte attendants at those meetings around those two dates and found no emails sent by me to those individuals relating to those meetings ”.
It can therefore be concluded that the Department does not hold any information within the scope of your request and that no such information is held by any other person or body on its behalf”.
5. The appellant appealed to this Office on 21 November 2024.
6. I have been directed by the Commissioner to undertake my review under article 12(5) of the Regulations. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by the appellant and the Department. In addition, I have had regard to:
• the Guidance document provided by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on the implementation of the AIE Regulations (the Minister’s Guidance);
• Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
• the 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention); and
• The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’).
7. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review the public authority's internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it.
8. The appellant’s original appeal to this Office contended that adequate searches were not carried out by the Department in identifying all information coming within the scope of the request. Following the Department’s release of information on 23 January 2026 the appellant clarified that she wished to pursue the appeal on the basis of the redactions applied by the Department pursuant to articles 8(a)(i) and 9(1)(c). Accordingly, the scope of this review is limited to whether the Department was justified in applying these two articles to redacted information released to the appellant on 23 January 2026.
9. In its submission dated 23 January 2026 the Department provided an update on its position in respect of the appeal, stating:
“Following a review of the case I reviewed the searches conducted by the subject matter
experts in relation to the routine weekly meetings with Coillte. I also conducted an inbox search using the search terms “Coillte” and “meeting” and filters the results by dates in June 2024 and I can confirm that there was a routine weekly meeting held between representatives of DAFM Felling Licencing team and Coillte on 10 June 2024.The routine weekly meeting scheduled for 25 June 2024 was cancelled. After carrying out additional searches, where I contacted the manager of DAFM’s Coillte Governance team, I can also confirm that there was a Governance Review meeting held on 12 June 2024 which was attended by DAFM senior management and senior management in Coillte.
The manager of DAFM’s Coillte Governance team and the High Executive Officer of the same team provided me with eight records held by the Department related to this meeting after conducting inbox and eDOCs searches for meetings held in June 2024. In response to the appellant contention about a copy of the presentation given by Coillte at the meeting on 12 June, the manager of DAFM Coillte Governance team has confirmed that they do not have a copy of that presentation. I have part-granted these records, with two records redacted, to the appellant along with one record relating to the routine weekly meeting held on 10 June 2024 and a copy of the record previously provided to the appellant in relation to the routine weekly meeting that was cancelled on 25 June 2024 with updated redactions”.
10. The Department outlined further how it has invoked articles 8(a)(i) and 9(1)(c) to the redacted information, stating:
“_It is the Department’s position that the release of commercially sensitive information,
including future commercial strategies, financial forecasts and investment plans of a commercial semi-state body, such as Coillte, should be refused under article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations and that it would not be in the public interest to release this information as it would have the real risk of undermining the company’s position relative to private competitors and negotiations in relation to future projects_.
Information that has been refused as personal information relates to HR issues relating to individual members of Coillte staff and as such is protected by law and under article 8(i)(a) of the AIE Regulations. In relation to records 9 and 10 the redacted information refused under article 8(i)(a) relates to mobile phone numbers of Coillte staff, which is personal information that there is little public interest in releasing, similarly to the Commissioner’s decision in OCE-161017-J5W7L2 .
8(a)(i)
| Record 1-Briefing Document for Secretary General | Board member names |
| Record 8-Minutes of Secretary General meeting | Board member names |
| Record 9- Emails regarding cancelled meeting | Phone numbers of staff |
| Record 10 – Emails regarding meeting | Phone number of staff |
| Record 16-Emails regarding meeting | Phone number of staff |
11. The Department has sought to rely on article 8(a)(i) to redacted staff/board member information in the records. To rely on article 8(a)(i) the information must show disclosure of the information— “(a) would adversely affect— (i) the confidentiality of personal information relating to a natural person who has not consented to the disclosure of the information, and where that confidentiality is otherwise protected by law .”
12. Article 8(a)(i) seeks to transpose Article 4(2)(f) of the AIE Directive, which enables Member States to provide for refusal of a request where disclosure would “adversely affect … the confidentiality of personal data and/or files relating to a natural person where that person has not consented to the disclosure of the information to the public, where such confidentiality is provided for by national or Community law ”.
13. The final paragraph of Article 4(2) states, referring to the predecessor to the GDPR: “Within this framework, and for the purposes of the application of subparagraph (f), Member States shall ensure that the requirements of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data are complied with .”
14. In light of this, I consider that the reference to “personal information ” in article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations to be consistent with the meaning of “personal data ” under the GDPR, a concept with which every public authority is now very familiar. It is clear from this final paragraph of Article 4(2) of the AIE Directive that the AIE regime is intended to interact harmoniously with the European data protection regime. In the same vein, Article 86 of the GDPR (read with recital 154) permits the disclosure of personal data in accordance with information access regimes under EU or national law, where those regimes reconcile the right of access to information with the right to protection of personal data. This again indicates that the GDPR is intended to interact harmoniously with national and European regimes offering public access to information.
15. With respect to the position contended by the Department that the redacted information (staff names/phone numbers) enjoys the protection of article 8(a)(i) this issue has been considered and adjudicated in decision OCE-161017-J5W7L2 . In my view the analysis concerning GDPR in that decision at paragraphs 46 to 66 is applicable also to this case. I am satisfied that the information is ‘personal information’, that the requester has a ‘legitimate interest ’ in receiving the data pursuant to the request and that its disclosure is necessary to meet that interest. Whilst the Department have not confirmed if consent was given by the data subjects to disclose the information, I can reasonably assume that it has not been given. I am also satisfied that the personal information at issue in this case does not fall under any of the special categories of personal data meriting higher protection.
16. It is necessary therefore to next consider the public interest balancing test, as noted in OCE-161017-J5W7L2 (paragraph 70) although as a matter of principle a public authority must carry out the balancing exercise in Article 6(1)(f) first and again (if needed) under article 10(3) of the AIE Regulations, in practice it is unnecessary for me to go through the exercise twice because in this decision as the analysis is the same.
17. The Department outline its consideration of the public interest balancing test in the internal review decision to the appellant, stating “The factors in favour of withholding (redacting) personal information are - protection of the confidentiality of personal information of a third party, prevention of potential harm or misuse of personal data and compliance with General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). Releasing an individual's personal information violates their right to privacy and confidentiality. DAFM needs to weigh the potential impact of disclosure against the need for transparency, in this case we are of the opinion that your information request is not compromised by redaction of personal information” noting further in the submission to this Office that redacted information within records 9, 10 and 16 “relates to mobile phone numbers of Coillte staff, which is personal information that there is little public interest in releasing, similarly to the Commissioner’s decision in OCE-161017-J5W7L2 ”.
18. In considering the balancing of interests, I have considered the individual data subjects’ interest in the protection of their personal data, taking into account the nature of the specific personal data at issue and the data subject’s rights under Articles 7 and 8 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. I have considered the nature of the information is question within records 1 and 8, namely information regarding board member names, I consider this to be at the less sensitive end of the scale of personal information. I further note that specifically that in relation to the names within records 1 and 8, this information is available publicly online via Coillte’s own website.
19. In noting the specific information at issue in records 9,10 and 16 however [phone number of staff members], I am of the view that the internal phone number or mobile number of a staff member should be considered separately to information regarding staff/board member’s names. An internal phone number or mobile number is generally not intended for use by the public in contacting members of a public authority, as public authorities generally provide contact information for members of the public on their websites.
20. When considering individuals’ interest in the protection of their personal data, I have taken into account whether there is likely to be any adverse effect for the individuals or otherwise, if their data is released. With respect to the board member names, I note that the Department have not outlined such an adverse impact, nor can I identify any given the nature of the information and as noted above, these names are available publicly.
21. As noted above in paragraph 19, I do not consider that staff mobile or internal phone numbers can be considered on equal terms as board member names. Given the purpose of such phone numbers, I consider that there is limited or no public interest in releasing phone numbers in circumstances where other avenues of communication with respect to access to information are open to the public.
22. Weighing the above interests in the balance, I conclude that the public interest in releasing the board member names outweighs the interests served by the refusal. In considering the public interest in releasing the corresponding staff phone numbers, I am of the view that the public interest of disclosure does not outweigh the interest served by refusal.
9(1)(c)
| Record 1-Briefing Doc for Secretary General | Financial/Investment Information | |
| Record 8-Minutes of Sectary General Meeting | Financial/Investment Information |
23. Article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority may refuse to make available environmental information where disclosure of the information requested would adversely affect commercial or industrial confidentiality, where such confidentiality is provided for in national or European law to protect a legitimate economic interest. This provision seeks to transpose Article 4(2)(d) of the AIE Directive, which, in turn, is based on Article 4(4)(d) of the Aarhus Convention. Article 9(1)(c) must be considered alongside article 10(3) and 10(4) of the AIE Regulations. Article 10(3) requires a public authority to consider each request on an individual basis and weigh the public interest served by disclosure against the interest served by refusal. Article 10(4) of the AIE Regulations provides that the grounds for refusal of a request shall be interpreted on a restrictive basis having regard to the public interest served by disclosure.
24. The Minister’s Guidance, in considering article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations, states: “The fact that a person or company asks for information to be treated as confidential does not of itself establish it as such for the purpose of the Regulations, and the public authority must satisfy itself that real and substantial commercial interests are threatened. In addition, the fact that the release of information (for example, in relation to a pollution incident) might damage the reputation of a company is not of itself adequate reason for withholding it .” (paragraph 12.4)
25. When relying on article 9(1)(c), a public authority must show that the information at issue is commercial or industrial in nature; that the commercial or industrial information has an element of confidentiality; that the confidentiality of that commercial or industrial information is provided for in law to protect a legitimate economic interest; and that the economic interest, would be adversely affected by disclosure of the information at issue. As outlined above, the public authority must demonstrate a clear link between disclosure of the information that has actually been withheld and any adverse effect. The adverse effect on its legitimate economic interest must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical. A mere assertion of an expectation of harm is not sufficient.
23. With respect to its reliance on 9(1)(c) the Department have stated that “It is the Department’s position that the release of commercially sensitive information, including future commercial strategies, financial forecasts and investment plans of a commercial semi-state body, such as Coillte, should be refused under article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations and that it would not be in the public interest to release this information as it would have the real risk of undermining the company’s position relative to private competitors and negotiations in relation to future projects ”.
24. While the Department has categorised the information as ‘commercially sensitive’, as above, it has failed to demonstrate how this is the case, nor has it identified a law which provides for the confidentiality of the information. It notes that release of the records would risk undermining the ‘company’s position’ with respect to private competitors and negotiations to future projects but does not identify which records in particular and in what specific way these negotiations would be undermined. Accordingly, in my view the Department has failed to justify why it has refused certain information in relation to article 9(1)(c).
25. Having reviewed the information in question, I note it contains, prima facia, information of a commercial and financial nature, which concerns both the Department and a third party (Coillte). While this does not automatically confer the protection of 9(1)(c), it would not be appropriate in my view to direct release of it at this juncture. Further, as the Department did not make submissions on the applicability of 9(1)(c) to this information in its internal review decision (as the identification of the information by the Department postdated it) the correct course of action to my mind therefore is to direct the Department to undertake a fresh internal review decision concerning the information redacted under this provision.
26. In circumstances where I have found that article 9(1)(c) is not engaged, the question of considering the public interest test at article 10 of the AIE Regulations does not arise.
27. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm the Department’s decision with respect to article 8(a)(i) concerning staff phone numbers, however I annul its decision regarding the applicability of this article to board member names and direct it to release this information to the appellant.
28 . With respect to information redacted under article 9(1)(c) I find that it did not provide adequate reasons for same. I annul this part of the Department’s decision and direct that it undertakes a fresh internal review decision concerning information redacted under this provision.
A party to the appeal or any other person affected by this decision may appeal to the High Court on a point of law from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than two months after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
______________________
Gemma Farrell
Senior Investigator
Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information